My opinion on Accomodationgate

Here I am getting all of this traffic from PZ's site as a result of a discussion about the faithiest controversy/Mooneybaum incident/Accomodationgate, and I don't even have a single post about it on my blog. Okay, time to fix that.

I've offered my opinion in the comments on various blogs, so I'll just resummarize it here -- this time with pictures!

On the issue itself, I fall in the so-called "New Atheist" camp, in the sense that I do not think religion and science are compatible¹, and I don't think there is some sort of social responsibility and/or critical pragmatic imperative that ought to prevent me from saying so. Others have expounded on this position at great lengths, so I won't bother to rehash any of that.

Perhaps the more unique take I have on it is that I think that, strategically, it is important that we have both "New Atheists" and accomodationists -- and maybe even desirable that the accomodationists distance themselves from us, though certainly not as loudly or as shrilly as Mooneybaum feel compelled to do.

Modern atheists often draw an analogy to the gay rights movement, and while we certainly do not face the level of discrimination that gay people did and still do (the state of NY has never barred Atheist Marriage, AFAIK...), I think there are a number of areas where the analogy is apt. Certainly the Out Campaign is an idea I support, as you can see a few hundred pixels to your right.

This is Dawkins and PZ...

Another place where I think the analogy is apt is the answer to the question, What kind of people are necessary to enact social change? Riddle me this: In the case of the gay rights movement, which archetype is more responsible for the progress over the past decades? Is it the guy marching in the Pride parade wearing almost nothing except a few bits of leather, at all times being unashamedly himself? Or is it the nice quiet lesbian couple that lives next door, where your mom didn't even realize they were gay until you pointed it out to her?

...and this is Mooney and Kirshenbaum. Dunno who the kid is...

Answer: Both. Social change is not possible without "loud and proud" elements -- whether they be gay or atheist -- to push the boundaries of what is acceptable. To coin a phrase, "We're here, we're godless, get used to it." At the same time social change is not possible without people who are so moderate that the other side can't even really find anything about them to criticize. The same way your conservative mother might say, "Patty and Selma are gay? But they act so normal! Huh, I guess it's not true that all gay people are evil," we should hope that a young fundie might say, "Chris Mooney is an atheist? But he is so holier-than-thou!" Oh wait, that didn't come out right, but you get my point...

So, even though I disagree with the NCSE's position on accomodationism, I am secretly glad that they do it. It probably is strategically desirable, but only if at the same time you have us vocal atheists saying, "Uh, no that's not quite right." If the accomodationist position were the only active one, it would be a strategic dud, because the other side would always be paddling harder.

I think the accomodationists and the "New Atheists" actually compliment each other quite well. As entertaining as this little blogowar is (and now you can buy the book! When is the movie coming out, Mooney?), I really hope it just kinda quietly goes away. It doesn't do anybody any favors. Well, except me, because I indirectly managed to get a lot of blog hits from it, but I don't think that was Mooney's or Coyne's original intention...

¹That is, I think religion as most people understand it is logically contradictory to science -- not that a reasonable person couldn't believe both... I think I'm a reasonable person, and I believe a number of irrational things, e.g. that my wife and I were meant to be together, that my son is the smartest four-month-old on the planet, that anybody will still be interested in my blog after next week... The differences are 1) I know these beliefs are irrational, 2) I don't try to convince anybody else of my own personal irrationalities, and 3) I don't pretend they are compatible with a scientific worldview, so that if it eventually becomes undesirable or dangerous to continue to hold these irrational beliefs I will have no trouble discarding them. In fact, if theists would apply those three criteria to their beliefs, I don't think there'd be much of a role for the so-called "New Atheists", because what would we have to complain about?